[PATCH] ARM: vic: register the VIC for ST-modified VIC's

[PATCH] ARM: vic: register the VIC for ST-modified VIC's

[Jamie Iles]

When probing the VIC, the ST variant has a different probing method to
account for the extra interrupts which meant we didn't previously call
vic_register() which registered the irq_domain.

Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@stericsson.com>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Jamie Iles <jamie@jamieiles.com>
---

I _think_ it's just Nomadik affected here which I don't have access to.
I can send an updated pull request or put it in Russell's tracker,
whichever is easiest.

 arch/arm/common/vic.c |    5 +++--
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/common/vic.c b/arch/arm/common/vic.c
index 6ed41ec..7728750 100644
--- a/arch/arm/common/vic.c
+++ b/arch/arm/common/vic.c
@@ -318,7 +318,7 @@ static void __init vic_set_irq_sources(void __iomem *base,
  *  and 020 within the page. We call this "second block".
  */
 static void __init vic_init_st(void __iomem *base, unsigned int irq_start,
-				u32 vic_sources)
+			       u32 vic_sources, struct device_node *node)
 {
 	unsigned int i;
 	int vic_2nd_block = ((unsigned long)base & ~PAGE_MASK) != 0;
@@ -345,6 +345,7 @@ static void __init vic_init_st(void __iomem *base, unsigned int irq_start,
 	}
 
 	vic_set_irq_sources(base, irq_start, vic_sources);
+	vic_register(base, irq_start, 0, node);
 }
 
 static void __init __vic_init(void __iomem *base, unsigned int irq_start,
@@ -367,7 +368,7 @@ static void __init __vic_init(void __iomem *base, unsigned int irq_start,
 
 	switch(vendor) {
 	case AMBA_VENDOR_ST:
-		vic_init_st(base, irq_start, vic_sources);
+		vic_init_st(base, irq_start, vic_sources, node);
 		return;
 	default:
 		printk(KERN_WARNING "VIC: unknown vendor, continuing anyways\n");
-- 
1.7.4.1

[PATCH] ARM: vic: register the VIC for ST-modified VIC's

[Linus Walleij]

On 11/23/2011 04:28 PM, Jamie Iles wrote:
> When probing the VIC, the ST variant has a different probing method to
> account for the extra interrupts which meant we didn't previously call
> vic_register() which registered the irq_domain.
>
> Cc: Linus Walleij<linus.walleij@stericsson.com>
> Cc: Russell King<rmk+linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier<marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jamie Iles<jamie@jamieiles.com>
> ---
>
> I _think_ it's just Nomadik affected here which I don't have access to.
> I can send an updated pull request or put it in Russell's tracker,
> whichever is easiest.
>    

This also affects mach-u300 and mach-ep93xx OTOH.

This seems to be based on something else that is out-of-tree
so I don't get the whole picture...

Linus Walleij

[PATCH] ARM: vic: register the VIC for ST-modified VIC's

[Jamie Iles]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 04:39:26PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 04:28 PM, Jamie Iles wrote:
> >When probing the VIC, the ST variant has a different probing method to
> >account for the extra interrupts which meant we didn't previously call
> >vic_register() which registered the irq_domain.
> >
> >Cc: Linus Walleij<linus.walleij@stericsson.com>
> >Cc: Russell King<rmk+linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> >Cc: Marc Zyngier<marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> >Signed-off-by: Jamie Iles<jamie@jamieiles.com>
> >---
> >
> >I _think_ it's just Nomadik affected here which I don't have access to.
> >I can send an updated pull request or put it in Russell's tracker,
> >whichever is easiest.
> 
> This also affects mach-u300 and mach-ep93xx OTOH.
> 
> This seems to be based on something else that is out-of-tree
> so I don't get the whole picture...

Sorry, should have specified the base - this is the VIC device 
tree/MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER stuff that is in next.  I did look at u300 and 
ep93xx, but it looks like their VIC's are 0x1000/0x10000 apart 
respectively when registered so weren't the ST type that supported 64 
IRQ's.

Jamie

[PATCH] ARM: vic: register the VIC for ST-modified VIC's

[Linus Walleij]

On 11/23/2011 04:43 PM, Jamie Iles wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 04:39:26PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>    
>> On 11/23/2011 04:28 PM, Jamie Iles wrote:
>>      
>>> When probing the VIC, the ST variant has a different probing method to
>>> account for the extra interrupts which meant we didn't previously call
>>> vic_register() which registered the irq_domain.
>>>
>>> Cc: Linus Walleij<linus.walleij@stericsson.com>
>>> Cc: Russell King<rmk+linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier<marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jamie Iles<jamie@jamieiles.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I _think_ it's just Nomadik affected here which I don't have access to.
>>> I can send an updated pull request or put it in Russell's tracker,
>>> whichever is easiest.
>>>        
>> This also affects mach-u300 and mach-ep93xx OTOH.
>>
>> This seems to be based on something else that is out-of-tree
>> so I don't get the whole picture...
>>      
> Sorry, should have specified the base - this is the VIC device
> tree/MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER stuff that is in next.  I did look at u300 and
> ep93xx, but it looks like their VIC's are 0x1000/0x10000 apart
> respectively when registered so weren't the ST type that supported 64
> IRQ's.
>    

Aha OK now I get the difference.
Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

Thanks!
Linus Walleij

[PATCH] ARM: vic: register the VIC for ST-modified VIC's

[Jamie Iles]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 03:28:30PM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:
> When probing the VIC, the ST variant has a different probing method to
> account for the extra interrupts which meant we didn't previously call
> vic_register() which registered the irq_domain.
> 
> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@stericsson.com>
> Cc: Russell King <rmk+linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jamie Iles <jamie@jamieiles.com>
> ---
> 
> I _think_ it's just Nomadik affected here which I don't have access to.
> I can send an updated pull request or put it in Russell's tracker,
> whichever is easiest.

Russell, would this be best in your patch tracker?  I've just tried a 
test merge of the irqchip consolidation branch into your devel branch 
and got some conflicts that I think you've already fixed up once.  The 
patch applies cleanly to your current devel branch.

Jamie